Welcome to the vintage Jaeger-LeCoultre forum. You must be a registered user in order to use the forum. If you have a question about a specific watch, please upload photos as it is impossible to know what you are talking about based on serial numbers. Please limit discussion to items of horological interest. You may post links to sites with educational content, but please no links to competing sites with similar items for sale including auction sites.

Forum rules
Please limit discussion to items of horological interest. You may post links to sites with educational content, but please no links to competing sites with similar items for sale. You must register to use any of the fora.

Hello everyone, as you can see this is my first post and I need some expert help.

I recently acquired this watch (three photographs attached), which I really like a lot and have been trying to establish as much information about it, as I can . The watch was sold to me as being "all original except for the replaced crystal". From my research and the numbers on the watch, this is what would appear to me, to be the situation.

Case back: stamped on the outside is 007084 but I do not know how to interpret this. Absence of a letter would indicate it is stainless steel, confirmed by the stamping on the inside of "Acier Inoxydable". It is a 'screw down' type and not a 'snap off'.

Case: diameter is approx. 34mm.would appear to be stainless steel as the caseback. Is this an E159 (waterproof) case but missing a waterproof "O" ring.

Movement: is gilded and stamped with the number 366600, calibre P478, but again I do not know how to interpret this.

Dial: looks original to me, although has some spots and discolouration.

Hands: look original to me, but with some corrosion, however I have seen other cal 478's with a 'sword' style seconds hand as opposed to the 'stick' style on mine, therefore I am not sure if authentic.

Crown: looks original to me, but is it correct for this model.

It is possible to date this watch and confirm if the numbers line up, plus, any comments or views on the statement, it is "all original except for the replaced crystal"?

Any information, help or advice would be gratefully received. I do have more photographs and at higher resolution if required.

The serial of the case back starting with 00 is a little weird. So you have a shot of the inside of the back? The rest looks OK, and the crystal is generic anyway, no way to tell if it's original or not so don't worry about that.

I did reply to your post including photographs of the inside of the case back, on Monday evening 4th December and, although everything looked correct at the 'preview' stage, there seems to have been a problem, as my post has not been published, therefore I will try again.

Firstly, I must thank you for taking the time and trouble by responding to my initial post. I attach a further three photographs, one of which shows the stamping of the leCoultre Co lettering, on the inside of the case back.

Could you expand on what you describe as "a little weird", the stamped number 007084 on the case back?

I am pleased you think the rest of the watch looks OK .

I don't have a problem with the replacement crystal, as that was confirmed to me as, such before I bought the watch.

If you could give me your views on the case back, movement numbers and anything else you might have regarding dates, model number etc. I would be very grateful.

I think the watch looks OK, it's a little odd that the serial begins with 00, implying a case serial # of 7k or so, which would be way too early for this watch. However, this model didn't exists when 7k serials were floating around, so I'm sure it's OK just unusual.

I have approached some other watch forums in an attempt to get further information on my watch and have had some interesting comments.

It would appear the majority consider the movement and dial to be OK but are not sure about the case, which I think reflects your conclusions. One contributor thought my watch could be a "marriage" of an 'old' dial and movement in a 'new' case. Could this "marriage" be the reason why the numbers on the caseback do not line up with the movement and look a little odd.

Another contributor added an interesting comment, which was new to me, although he indicated it was fairly common knowledge. He suggested that the notation (logo) on the caseback, movement and dial should always be the same and uniform. It will be signed Jaeger LeCoultreorLeCoultre but not both.

On my watch, the "Jaeger LeCoultre" notation on the dial and the movement look the same to me, but the notation on the inside of the caseback, is missing the "Jaeger" and has and additional "Co". Therefore, as this is not the same and uniform, does it reinforce the "marriage" argument.

Would you have any views on these points? I would be very grateful for your input.

Goodness the comments are all over the place from this forum and not accurate.

For the first guy, if I understood the answer, is that the movement and case serials need to "match up" that is not the case. I think your case looks correct for that model, just the serial number is out of whack compared to European numbers....maybe it's a non Euro market watch? That's possible. It's also possible it's been shaved down a re-stamped for reasons I Ignore.

To the second guy, for Vintage JLC, the dial and movement are marked JLC and the cases in almost all the watches are marked LeCoultre. So what you have looks correct. There are a couple of exceptions like like the Geophysic where the movement is stamped LeCoultre for example.